In an era marked by increasing tensions over social justice, wealth redistribution, and the role of the state, it is wise to reflect on the roots of inequality and determine whether they are inherently unjust. From a free-market perspective, inequality can be seen not only as a natural outcome of economic dynamics but also as a condition that drives innovation, social mobility, and economic growth. However, we might ask: is this perspective ethically acceptable?
In a free economy, economic disparities do not arise from centralized design but from voluntary interactions among individuals. Many factors contribute to these differences:
- Unique Skills and Talents: Each individual possesses abilities and knowledge that vary in demand and value according to the market. For instance, a specialized neurosurgeon may earn more than a farmer—not because the former is intrinsically more valuable as a person, but because the complexity and impact of their services are rarer and more sought after.
- Personal Preferences and Individual Sacrifices: Inequality also reflects individual choices. Some people opt to work long hours or take significant financial risks by starting businesses, while others prioritize work-life balance. These personal decisions have economic implications.
- Innovation and Value Creation: Entrepreneurs who develop groundbreaking products, such as Steve Jobs with the iPhone or Elon Musk with Tesla, accumulate significant wealth because of the benefits their innovations generate for millions of people.
This perspective does not imply that all inequality is fair or desirable but rather that much of it arises from legitimate and ethical processes within a free-market system.
Is Inequality Unjust?
The ethics of economic inequality can be addressed in terms of legitimacy. Legitimate inequality arises from meritocracy, innovation, and personal effort. For instance, when someone accumulates wealth by creating jobs or developing products that improve others’ lives, this wealth is not only ethical but also socially beneficial. Illegitimate inequality occurs when political or economic actors manipulate the system to gain disproportionate advantages. State-backed monopolies or policies that favor certain sectors at the expense of others are clear examples of unjust inequality.
Robert Nozick argued that if inequality arises from voluntary exchanges and respects property rights, it should not be considered immoral. Therefore, the focus should not be on inequality itself but on the conditions that create it.
Wealth Redistribution: Solution or Problem?
Redistributive policies aim to reduce inequality but often come with negative side effects:
- Economic Disincentives: High taxes on income and wealth can discourage hard work, investment, and innovation.
- Inefficient Resource Allocation: Redistributive policies often divert resources to government programs that may be less effective than private initiatives in addressing poverty.
- Institutional Dependency: Prolonged subsidies can foster structural dependency rather than empower individuals to overcome poverty.
Milton Friedman argued that forced redistribution destroys the incentives for productive effort, ultimately harming both the poor and the rich in the long run.
Inequality and the Reduction of Absolute Poverty
A key point in favor of the free market is its capacity to reduce absolute poverty, even if relative inequality persists or increases. Over the past 30 years, more than a billion people have escaped extreme poverty, primarily in economies that have adopted more open market policies. Although internal inequality has risen in many of these countries, overall well-being has improved significantly. In a free-market environment:
- Competition Drives Innovation and Job Creation: Historically, trade liberalization has allowed millions of people in developing countries to access higher-paying jobs in export sectors.
- Private Capital Fuels Growth: Investors seek opportunities in emerging markets, facilitating the transfer of technology, infrastructure, and access to quality goods and services.
The Crucial Role of Equality Before the Law
In a free-market system, no one should receive preferential treatment from the state, whether through specific subsidies, protectionist regulations, or exclusive contracts. Justice is ensured when everyone competes under the same rules, economic outcomes more accurately reflect individual effort and the satisfaction generated by a product or service.
Economic inequality in a free-market system is not necessarily an evil to be eradicated. Rather, it is an intrinsic feature of a society that values individual freedom, innovation, and the diversity of talents. However, this does not mean ignoring illegitimate inequalities, which must be addressed with transparent and robust institutions that protect property rights and fair competition.
As economist Friedrich Hayek observed, social justice, in its pursuit of equalizing outcomes, risks sacrificing the freedom and prosperity that only the market can provide. In the end, the goal should not be to impose material equality but to ensure that all individuals have equal opportunities to reach their full potential, free from artificial barriers and state coercion.
Omar Camilo Hernández Mercado is a law student at the Universidad Libre de Colombia, Senior coordinator of Students for Liberty in Colombia, and a seminarist in “The Austrian School of Economics” at the International Bases Foundation.
READER COMMENTS
David Seltzer
May 25 2025 at 3:27pm
Omar: Well done. The insidiousness of government policies addressing “inequality” is subordinating the individual to the state, wherein, personal liberty is restricted. Of course, that’s been chronicled in the past.
john hare
May 25 2025 at 6:29pm
Right now I am concerned about inequality in the profiling of working Hispanics. State troopers are pulling over work trucks and calling ICE if any in the vehicle can’t prove their status. Workers are much easier to find than actual parasites. My workers and extended family being from Mexico and other Latin American countries affects my viewpoint.
steve
May 26 2025 at 10:46am
If only inequality resulted from those few things then you would have written a very good piece. However, there are other causes of inequality. A group with a large majority can enforce their preferences and refuse to allow a minority group to advance based upon their abilities. While that large majority may put their preferences into law they dont really need to do so. Next, there can be built in beliefs, often abetted by religious beliefs, that will allow on group to dominate over another. There were sometimes laws, but often not, that kept some women from holding jobs that they were clearly capable of holding, just as an example. In medicine there were rarely laws prohibiting women from becoming doctors so a few did in the past, but social norms prevented many others.
Finally, just to avoid writing too much, I think that long term suppression of human capital leads to inequality. Even when you declare everyone equal if that has been preceded by centuries of enforced inequality it takes years, probably at least many decades, for that to reverse as the beliefs about inequality have been internalized by both the majority and the minority.
Steve
Thomas L Hutcheson
May 26 2025 at 7:17pm
I don’t think income inequality is immoral, but we do need some reduction in consumption by high income people (though not them alone) to reduce deficits to no more than the sum of high yielding public investments. We should not be borrowing from investors to pay for consumption.
Comments are closed.